books_cpra 2007_crossing cultural borders

8/20/2019 Books_CPRA 2007_Crossing Cultural Borders

1/82

1

by Amanda Brandellero

european cultural foundation

Crossing cultural borders? Migrants and ethnic diversity in thecultural industries.

Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan and International Development StudiesUniversity of Amsterdam


2/82

2


3/82

3

Crossing cultural borders?

Migrants and ethnic diversity in thecultural industries.

by Amanda Brandellero

EAN 9789062820535


4/82

4

Table of contents

List of tables and gures

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Prologue

1. Introduction

Structure of the report

Methodology

2. Cultural industries in perspective

Dening the sector

Cultural industries: from art to industry?

Exploring the cultural industries’ production chain and networks

3. Negotiating the cultural industries’ opportunity structure

Cultural industries and the diverse metropolis

Mediation in the cultural industries

Ethnicity, culture and diversity Institutional approaches to ethnicity and diversity

4. Migrants in the cultural industries

Perspectives on migrant ‘cultural entrepreneurs’

Framework for the analysis of migrant cultural entrepreneurship

market typologies

Cultural industries: the diversity of a sector

Architecture

Fashion

Music

5. Across cultural borders: reections from the eldwork

1. The extent to which ethnic diversity is activated as symbolic and

aesthetic fuel to drive innovation in processes of commodication of

culture.

2. The dynamics through which the mediation of tastes and trends within

the cultural industries comes to shape the boundaries between

ethnic/non-ethnic cultural products.

3. Exploring how ethnic diversity matters in the cultural industries.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6

7

8

9

10

10

12

15

16

17

18

20

22

24

2730

31

32

35

37

38

39

39

41

42

49

53

57


5/82

5

62

65

69

75

Annex 1. Portraits

Annex 2. Questionnaire guide

Annex 3. Bibliography

Annex 4. List of CPRA jury members


6/82

6

Maame Baryeh collection. Photo by Jordan Matyka

Cultural industries production chain

Rene Sanchez, Cap Verdian music record shop owner

Posters at La Chapelle show the vibrancy of the Paris music scene

François Essindi and Jimi Soto from Abakuya

Posters from the festival Africolor

The Sonima record shop in the Château d’Eau neighbourhood, Paris

Mainstream and ethnic value chains in the cultural industries

The DGT Architectes team : Tsuyoshi Tane, Lina Ghotmeh and Dan

Dorrel

Imtaz Khaliq, bespoke taylor. Photo courtesy of Imtaz Khaliq

Musician Abaji, music as memory

A shop selling a variety of Indian products in Paris

Record shop in the Paris Goutte d’Or neighbourhood

Laurindo, fashion designer

Sadio Bee, mixing fashion traditions

Imane Ayissi, fashion designer and writer

A Maame Baryeh fashion design

Research questions

Overview of interview respondents

Scott’s cultural industries taxonomyTypology of migrant entrepreneurship markets

Cultural industries intra-sectoral diversity

Dimensions of intercultural dialogue in cultural industries production

and consumption

Baseline initiatives in enhancing cultural competence

List of gures and tables

11

18

21

24

28

29

33

34

38

39

40

42

44

45

47

48

50

12

13

1635

37

59

62

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3 Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7


7/82

7

The Cultural Policy Research Award (CPRA) was created to encourage much needed research in the cultural policy

eld, support a younger generation of cultural policy interested professionals, and develop a network of scholars to engagein European research cooperation.

Launched as a joint venture of the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) in Amsterdam and the Riksbankens

Jubileumsfond, a research foundation in Stockholm, the CPRA was conceived to make a meaningful contribution to the

discipline of cultural policy research. The two foundations have worked closely to shape this initiative, supported by the

expertise of a European jury of researchers and policy experts.

Both foundations felt strongly the need to strengthen the base of qualied persons to carry out research not only

in the arts but on cross-cultural matters and with a strong cultural policy dimension. Hence, the CPRA encourages research

that has an applied and comparative dimension in order to stimulate debate and inform cultural policymaking within a

European perspective.

Based on an annual European-wide competition, the CPRA jury selects a cultural policy research proposal to be

carried out by the award-winning candidate within one year. The selection is based on already achieved research accom-

plishments of the candidate, on the relevance and quality of the submitted research proposal, as well as their curriculum

vitae.

The target group is young researchers, scholars, or policy makers (under the age of 35) from all European countries.

Candidates must be educated to M.A. level in social sciences, art and humanities, or public policy research. The selected

applicant is awarded the prize and a grant of Euro 10.000 at the occasion of an international cultural policy related confer-

ence.

In 2007, the CPRA went to Amanda Brandellero, an English-Italian PhD researcher at the Amsterdam Institute for

Metropolitan and International Development Studies (University of Amsterdam), for her research paper Crossing cultural

borders? Migrants and ethnic diversity in the cultural industries. Amanda has accomplished an in depth theoretical study

applying a specic interdisciplinary approach, and an inspiring empirical study on migrant entrepreneurship in the cultural

industries in three European cities - Paris, London and Amsterdam.

By portraying the ‘ethnicity’ of the creative entrepreneurs in the areas of music, fashion and architecture, the

author reveals important intercultural processes that (pre)determine the birth of creative production. This knowledge may

result in ne tuning of the respective policy attitudes and instruments.

We express our thanks to the CPRA Jury members and its chair, Prof. Dr. Milena Dragicevic-Sesic (University of

Arts - Belgrade), for their full-edged contribution to the CPRA without which this endeavor would not have been possible.

We wish to thank the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond for partnering with ECF on this initiative which invests in the young cul-

tural policy research potential.

Isabelle Schwarz

Head of Cultural Policy Development, European Cultural Foundation

Foreword


8/82

8

This research project would not have been possible without the support of the European Cultural Policy Research

Award 2007, to which I am truly indebted. I would like to express my full gratitude to the members of the Jury who believedin my research proposal and I hope this report will justify your faith in me.

I would also like to thank my supervisor, Professor Robert Kloosterman, for his comments on an earlier draft, as well

as the participants to the Regional Studies Association Creative Regions Research Network workshop Creative industries,

scenes, cities, places: idiosyncratic dimensions of the cultural economy, which took place in Cardiff in April 2009 and par-

ticipants of the IMISCOE workshop ‘Matching Context and Capacity: The Economic Integration of Immigrants’ in Florence

June 2009. Finally, I would like to thank Caroline Rainger for her help with proofreading, and Caroline and Sara for their

support during eldwork.

I dedicate this report to Marcel.

Acknowledgements


9/82

9

Culture is a widely used, yet often vaguely dened term. In its ever-changing nature, it weaves together the past,

the present and the future, involving a constant negotiation of the world as we know and experience it, both habitually and

creatively (Williams and Gable 1989; Karner 2007). Thus, culture is by nature diverse and dynamic, both in its actual ‘con-

tent’ and in the discourses and representations that are developed around it. Reecting this dynamism, conceptualisations

of culture have also evolved, spanning from a perspective paralleling culture and the arts, and reaching a more contem-

porary reading, particularly in the light of processes of globalisation, where culture has come to encompass the ‘distinctive

spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to

art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs’ (UNESCO 2007). This element

of distinctiveness signals that diversity matters when conceptualising and experiencing culture: yet this diversity can be

contested, recognised, legitimised or not, as the case may be.

Diversity in culture may take various forms: it can for instance relate to beliefs or practices in some areas of life

(sub-cultural diversity), to societal principles and values sets (perspectival diversity), to different, often community linked,

systems of beliefs and practices (communal diversity) (Parekh 2002). Dening culture thus entails an exploration of iden-

tity, its representation and recognition, but also an understanding of the systems organising our individual and collectivelives. In addition, a more dynamic perspective is needed, understanding culture as a process, and recognising that the

boundaries between cultures are porous rather than xed.

The focus of this work is on how ethnic diversity is experienced in cultural production: more specically, how ethnic

diversity matters in the production and consumption of cultural industry goods. This question becomes extremely pressing

and relevant, raising questions about the representations of the world these products put forward, how these representa-

tions are shaped and by whom.

Prologue

‘The creative cities were nearly all cosmopolitan; they drew talent from the four

corners of their worlds, and from the very start those worlds were often surprisingly

far-ung. Probably, no city has ever been creative without continued renewal of the

creative bloodstream’.

(Hall 1998, p.285)


10/82

10

1. Introduction

The concept of the ‘stranger’, the ‘outsider’, or the ‘marginal man’ is one that has fas-

cinated sociologists, economists and geographers alike. Migrants have indeed long

been portrayed as key actors of innovation and thriving cultural activities, as a look at

the history of cultures and civilizations at the height of their vibrancy has highlighted

(see Hall 1998). Migrants are perceived as being ‘a cultural hybrid’, ‘living and shar-

ing intimately in the cultural life and traditions of two different people; never quite

willing to break, even if he were permitted to do so, with his past and his traditions,

and not quite accepted […] in the new society in which he now sought to nd a place’(Park 1928, p.892). Articulating the concept further, it ‘is in the mind of the marginal

man - where the changes and fusions of culture are going on - that we can best study

the processes of civilization and of progress’ (Stonequist 1935, P.12)


11/82

11

The link between the outsider status and cultural diversity is also one often made, highlighting the creative ten-

sions and innovative potential of the ‘different’ (Schumpeter 1934; Park 1950; Simmel 1950; Hall 1998). More recently,some observers have gone so far as to argue that cultural diversity linked to ethnic diversity is ‘a source of potential com-

petitiveness, because of the positive relationships between diversity, creativity and innovation’ (Smallbone, Bertotti et al.

2005, p.41). More generally speaking, by being at the intersection between the local and the global, as a result of their

multiple spatial and ethnic ties, contemporary migrants are seen as important contributors to strengthening the competitive

advantage of advanced urban economies (Henry, McEwan et al. 2002; Saxenian 2002; Saxenian 2007).

Figure 1 - Maame Baryeh collection, London. PHOTO BY JORDAN MATYKA.

At the beginning of the nineties, as the study of the ‘cultural economy’ binary started to gain momentum, concerns

were voiced over the participation of disadvantaged ethnic and racial communities in public and cultural life 1 (Bianchini

1994). To date, the extent to which migrants are contributing to cultural activities from an economic perspective, and the

dynamics through which they do so, in the context of the widening research on cultural industries as relatively new sectors

of activity, remains largely unexplored. Yet diversity, be it in all its forms, is increasingly considered as a living and renew-

able treasure, stimulating the capacity for expression, creation and innovation (UNESCO 2001).

This research focuses on the extent to which cultural industries provide opportunities to express the diversity of

local populations, drawing on the creative sparks and inputs of the variety of cultures which contemporary societies bring

together. ‘Ethnic’ in this context is used ‘primarily in contexts of cultural difference, where cultural difference is associated

above all with an actual or commonly perceived shared ancestry, with language markers and with national or regional

origin’ (Fenton 1999, p.4)2

. By combining three strands of thought, notably literature on cultural industries, ethnicity andculture, and migrant entrepreneurship, we aim to shed light on the dynamic interaction between the cultural industries’ typi-

cally localised production processes and the global reach of the cultural identities and references on which migrants can

draw. We explore this from three perspectives:


12/82

12

1. The extent to which ethnic diversity is activated as symbolic and aesthetic fuel to drive innovation in

processes of commodication of culture. Here we zoom into the cultural industries creative and

production processes, and explore the conditions under which ethnicity can become the object of com

modication, as a conscious/unconscious, strategic or spontaneous source of creative inspiration.

2. The dynamics through which the mediation of tastes and trends within the cultural industries comes to

shape the boundaries between ethnic/non-ethnic cultural products. Previously ‘niche’ products linkedto ethnic communities’ production and consumption patterns become part of the mainstream, while

others remain within the connes of group boundaries.

3. An exploration of how ethnic diversity matters in the cultural industries. Here we explore the conditions

under which ethnicity matters in cultural industries, from the perspective of the creative workers and

their products, as an advantage or disadvantage. Caution is due: often diversity is offered as an

independent variable in explaining why certain things happen, but we should be careful to ensure that

this is not an explanation of events post-facto.

Table 1 - Research questions

We posit that various actors and institutions (artists, producers, gatekeepers, consumers, loci of production and

consumption) interact to produce a complex but also dynamic ecological system within which migrants participate in the

cultural industries (Becker 1982). Drawing on material gathered from in-depth interviews with creative workers in three cul-

tural industry sectors, we will zoom into the ‘creative eld’ within which processes of migrant economic incorporation in the

cultural industries take place, looking at the interdependencies between space, commodication of culture and the actors

that inuence this (Bourdieu 1979; Scott 2006).

Firstly, we will gather key insights into the functioning of cultural industries and their evolution into one of the main-

stays of contemporary urban economies. Secondly, we will explore the question of ethnic diversity and culture, taking the

perspective of creative workers as ‘entrepreneurs of culture’, drawing on a variety of inputs and inspirations, be they ethni-cally specic or not. Thirdly, we will combine these insights to develop a dynamic framework of analysis of the participation

of creative workers from diverse ethnic backgrounds in the cultural industries, exploring opportunities and barriers to their

trajectories.

Structure of the report

In order to explore these issues, we rst set the scene by examining the theoretical notions and debates around

cultural industries. This will allow us to highlight the complex ecosystem of actors contributing to the transformation of crea-

tive ideas into cultural-industry products. We then introduce a discussion on the cultural industries’ opportunity structure.

Here we will develop some key elements for understanding the dynamics governing access and trajectories within cultural

industries, which individuals (migrant or non-migrant) negotiate. Given our focus on ethnic diversity, we will zoom into

the relationship between culture and ethnicity, drawing up conceptual pointers for our analysis of how ethnicity matters in

cultural industries’ production. Weaving these theoretical elements together, we will develop a framework for exploring the

articulation of ethnicity in cultural industries’ production. Finally, an empirical part drawing on semi-structured interviews

with cultural producers from three sectors (architecture, fashion and music) will be presented, allowing us to respond to the

set research questions and draw policy conclusions and recommendations, in addition to directions for further investiga-

tion.

Methodology This research strives to ll an analytical gap in the understanding of the interaction between ethnic diversity and

cultural-product industries. In doing so, it does not seek to be exhaustive in its approach, but rather exploratory, setting


13/82

13

out ideas and a new agenda for research in the eld. Given its vocation, the research called for a comparative approach,

cutting across cultural industry sectors and socio-economic and spatial settings. Rather than present a case study analysis

of a particular sector, it seems interesting to explore the question of ethnic diversity and culture and related dynamics by

approaching it from a sectoral viewpoint. At the same time, the experiences of musicians, architects and fashion designers

may vary depending on the institutional, social and economic context in which they are living: hence the decision to carry

out interviews in three cities, notably Amsterdam, London and Paris.

In line with the exploratory nature of the research and the virtual impossibility of carrying out an exhaustive

investigation on the experiences of migrant cultural entrepreneurs3 in the three sectors, three cities, respondents were

selected on the basis of their non-Western backgrounds and trajectories as rst-generation migrant cultural entrepreneurs,

who have received recognition for their work in the media or through sector-related initiatives and acknowledgements.

An overview of the respondents is provided in Annex 1 - Portraits. In order to preserve condentiality, the interviews were

given numbered codes, which are used in the report to cross-reference quotes. Altogether, 30 cultural entrepreneurs were

interviewed. The following table shows a break up of respondents by city and sector (see Annex 1 for an overview of re-

spondents).

Table 2 - Overview of interview respondents

The empirical research took the form of semi-structured interviews, lasting between one and three hours, at vari-

ous locations in the three cities. In some cases, email questionnaires were used, while in one case, the interview was car-

ried out by telephone. The majority of the interviews were recorded and transcribed, allowing for more accurate analysis

and quotation.

Sector Amsterdam London Paris TotalArchitecture 3 3 4 10

Fashion 1 6 4 11

Music 2 2 5 9

Total 6 11 13 30


14/82

14

2. Cultural industries in perspective

The cultural economy has emerged as a major source of employment and growth in

many countries and cities globally, and its potential for supporting the regeneration of

deprived and stagnating areas has been widely explored by academics and govern-

ment agencies alike (Markusen and Schrock 2006; Miles 2007). The culture-gener-

ating capabilities of cities are being harnessed to productive purposes, creating new

kinds of competitive advantages with major employment and income-enhancing ef-

fects (Scott 2000). The spatial manifestations of the cultural economy have attracted

signicant attention, and cities have emerged as the main playing eld of a ‘culturalrevolution’ in the new economy. The characteristics of the local milieus of production

and their ability to attract and retain the necessary human and other resources for

self-sustaining and enhancing growth have been central to policies aimed at devel-

oping creative clusters and supporting the positioning of cities in a competitive global

environment. In the policy realm particularly, the debate around the creative city has

gained momentum, particularly following the work of Richard Florida on the rise of

the creative class and how it is shaping economic and urban development4 (Landry

and Bianchini 1995; Florida 2004).


15/82

15

According to a recently published report on the cultural economy of Europe, the cultural and creative sector in the

enlarged European Union (30 members) contributed to 2.6% of the EU GDP in 2003, while the overall growth of the sec-tor’s value added was 19.7% in the period 1999-2003. In addition the sector employed 5.8 million people in 2004, equiva-

lent to 3.1% of the total employed population of the EU25 (KEA 2006, p.6). As such, cultural industries can no longer be

considered as ‘secondary to the ‘real’ economy where durable, ‘useful’ goods are manufactured (Hesmondhalgh 2007,

p.1). Growth in the cultural industries has beneted from increases in the disposable incomes of the population: subject

to Engel’s law of income elasticity (formulated by nineteenth century German-born statistician Ernst Engel), accepted as

the basic principle of income and consumption, as disposable income increases, the proportion of income spent on food

decreases, freeing up income for other forms of consumption, including cultural goods and services (for a discussion, see

Scott 2000).

For the purpose of this research, we should note here a focus on cultural industries, as opposed to ‘creative indus-

tries’, a term which has emerged as a denitional challenger to the former. The argument at the heart of this denitional

discussion lies in the emergence of creativity as a source of competitive advantage in the knowledge economy 5. The

shortcoming of ‘creative industries’, in agreement with Pratt, lies with the vagueness of the term ‘creativity’ as a construc-

tive basis for mapping sectors of activity: arguably in fact, all sectors are ‘creative’ in their own way (for a discussion of this

point, see Pratt 2007, p.6-7).

The collection of data on the cultural industries and the measurement of the growth and impact of the sector have

been hampered by denitional disagreements, characterised in particular by the contentious relationship between purely

artistic professions and their industrial counterparts, and between core professions and complementary ones. We here

give a brief overview of different perspectives adopted.

Dening the sector

‘Cultural industries produce and distribute cultural goods or services which, at the time they are considered as a

specic attribute, use or purpose, embody or convey cultural expressions, irrespective of the commercial value they may

have’, according to the terms of the Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions

adopted by UNESCO in 2005 (UNESCO 2005). This denition reects the duality of cultural industries, at the intersection

of culture and the economy: cultural products are in fact at the same time bearers of identity, values and meaning and fac-

tors of economic and social development (UNESCO 2006).

How these general terms, which mainly refer to the characteristics of cultural industries products, have translated

into denitions and measurements of the cultural economy differs widely across the EU. Hence we nd approaches re-

spectively emphasizing the ‘creative’, copyright, experience or cultural aspects. These diverging emphases have also lead

to statistical compatibility issues and a subsequent difculty in actually measuring the sector across the board. As a result,

the delineation of the cultural industries varies greatly across countries (for an overview and mapping of the economy of

culture in Europe, see KEA 2006, p.48).

In exploring the cultural economy in Europe, KEA reached a three-circles denition, which highlights the links be-

tween cultural and creative industries. In the proposed model, we nd a central ‘arts eld’, characterized primarily by non-

industrial, one-of-a-kind products (e.g. visual arts, heritage); a ‘cultural industries circle’, where products are exclusively

cultural, produced and reproduced in larger numbers and based on copyright (e.g. lm and music); ‘the creative industriesand activities circle’ where products may not be industrial and can be prototypes (e.g. design, architecture); and nally a

circle containing ‘related industries’, made up of sub-sectors which facilitate the work of the rst three circles (KEA 2006,

pp.53-54).


16/82

16

For the purpose of this study, we base our research on the denition put forward by the economic geographer Allen

Scott. According to his denition, cultural-products industries are concerned with the production and marketing of goods

and services that have aesthetic or semiotic content (Scott 2000), reecting an economic and cultural conjuncture where

‘commodity production and in particular our clothing, furniture, buildings and other artefacts are now intimately tied in with

styling changes which derive from artistic experimentation’ (Jameson 1998, p.19). Scott distinguishes between cultural

product-industries, which offer services outputs focusing on entertainment, edication and information and those offering

manufactured products, which contribute to shaping the individuality and self-assertion of their consumers (Scott 2004).Scott explores the shift from a rst generation of cultural economy (based mainly on place marketing, the commercializa-

tion of historical heritage and the production of large-scale investment in artefacts of collective cultural consumption in

the interest of urban regeneration) to a second (focused on the development of localised complexes of cultural-products

industries). Scott’s taxonomy is reproduced in Table 3 below.

Table 3 - Scott’s cultural industries taxonomy (source: Scott 2004, p.471)

Cultural products

Industrial districts

Products immobile

Resort complexes

Central city cultural

precincts

Temporary and

cyclical cultural

aggiomerations

Consumer oriented

craft/artisenal

industries

Assembly Jewelry

Web design

Advertising

Conventions

Museum districts

Cosmetics/perfumes

TV-program production

Clothing

Graphic design

Publishing

Entertainment districts

(theatres, clubs etc.)

Natural attractions

Toys

Architecture

Furniture

Industrial design

Public relations

Festivals

Heritage

Ceramics & glass

Motion pictures

Sports events

Eno-gastronomic products

Music industry

Upscale shopping districts

Theme parks

Leather goods

Process

Wines

Spirits

Books

Magazines

Newspapers

‘Spécialitesdu pays’

Specialized design

services

Media and related

industries

Products mobile


17/82

17

Building upon Bourdieu’s work on symbolic products, Scott denes the modern cultural economy as cultural-product

industries that produce goods and services whose subjective meaning […] is high in comparison with their utilitarian pur-

pose (Bourdieu 1971; Scott 2004, p.462). This subjective meaning results in a form of production that is design-intensive –

hence involving a cognitive and aesthetic reexive component – linked to differentiated and differentiating consumer tastes

and demands (Lash and Urry 1994). In addition, more work is proportionally going into developing models, and less work

in producing them, so that the research and development part is the main activity, while the actual manufacturing of the

product (for instance, printing copies of a book or a CD) becomes secondary (Hesmondhalgh 2007). Alongside the com-plex inter-relations of locationally convergent networks of production, there are however global networks of transactions

(Amin and Thrift 1992), with intermediaries channelling information and outputs from producers to consumers and vice

versa. This decoupling of knowledge and design-intensive inputs has led to a decentralization of the production stages,

leading in turn to a concentration of the more ‘cultural’ and ‘artistic’ stages in metropolitan areas and a delocalization of the

manufacturing elements of production. In addition, structural changes related to enhancements in information and commu-

nication technologies have fundamentally changed the ways of production, distribution and consumption in many cultural

industries, opening up new interfaces between cultural producers and consumers. New technologies have also impacted

the valuation of creativity, particularly in the recognition and remuneration of intellectual property rights. This holds true

especially in the audiovisual industry.

Cultural industries: from art to industry?

Considerable attention has been given to the specicity of cultural industries’ production, not always in an optimistic

vein. At the beginning of the last century, concerns were voiced that the ‘aura’ and uniqueness of the object of art would

wither as a result of its mechanical reproduction: “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one ele-

ment: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of

the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence” (Benjamin 1936, p.2).

Adorno and Horkheimer, members of the Frankfurt School, referred to the ‘culture industry’ to highlight the organi-

sational features of a cultural production system geared towards disseminating cultural products for mass consumption.This industry was seen as founded on entertainment and amusement, deleting all distinction between this and culture as

tradition and personal experience (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002; Fleury and Singly 2006). The transformation of culture

into commodity was thus seen as affecting the denition of culture itself, diluting it to an act of mass production and con-

sumption (Adorno and Bernstein 2001). Bernard Miège introduced a note of optimism by arguing that the introduction of

new technologies in cultural production, counter to Adorno’s expectations, would lead to innovative and interesting devel-

opments in the eld (Miège 1989; Scott 2000).

Interest in the cultural industries heightened with a growing realization that changes in contemporary capitalism had

resulted in a growing interconnectedness of culture and the economy, and an increasing aesthetisation of the latter. ‘What

has happened’ in the words of Jameson, ‘is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity produc-

tion generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing toairplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aes-

thetic innovation and experimentation” (Jameson 1991, p.56). This emerging ‘cognitive-cultural capitalism’ has resulted in

productive activity today thriving not only on advanced scientic knowledge and continuous innovation, but also on product

multiplicity and symbolic elaboration (Scott 2008).

Speaking about the present historical conjuncture, Jameson argues that we can observe a “dedifferentiation of

elds, such that economics has come to overlap with culture: that everything, including commodity production and high and

speculative nance, has become cultural; and culture has equally become profoundly economic or commodity oriented”

(Jameson 1998, p.73). As such, cultural industries are emblematic ‘of the hybrid and complex relationships between pro-

duction and consumption, the symbolic and material’ (Pratt 2008, p.3).

We now turn our attention to how these complex relationships between production and consumption impact upon

modes of structuring the sector’s activities, in particular by exploring the concepts of production chain and networks.


18/82

18

Exploring the cultural industries’ production chain and networks

The organization of production in the cultural industries is characterized by a ‘transaction-rich nexus of markets’,

linking small-sized rms or individual actors in complex interconnected stages of exible production relations. Given these

features, cultural industries were ‘post-Fordist avant la lettre’, providing a model for our understanding of post-industrial

transformations in other industries (Lash and Urry 1994, p.123). The outcome is a networked production ecology, where

the nished product is realized through the collaborative effort of different individuals, requiring various more or less spe-cialized inputs and a complex division of labour (Becker 1982; Negus 1996; Scott 2000; Leyshon 2001). We can therefore

identify a ‘project team’, ranging from primary creative personnel, technical workers to creative managers, marketing per-

sonnel, owners and executives and unskilled and semi-skilled labour (Hesmondhalgh 2007, pp.64-5, building upon work

by Bill Ryan). These inter-connections take the form of contracting, sub-contracting relations, technical and organisational

innovation, and labour markets, and may partly explain the co-location of many cultural industries (Pratt 1997). The signi-

cance of these inter-linkages can be exemplied in a study on the music economy in Sweden, where the value added and

prots to be found in information, services and related activities rather than actual production of music are signicant. The

development of a post-industrial music economy is based on the development of services and related products around the

core music and its survival depends on building innovative products and channels of distribution, crossing music and ICTs

(Power and Jansson 2004). The specicities of the sector, such as the risks of production and volatility of demand, which

we will explore in later sections, call for an atypical contractual governance in the cultural industries, striking a ne balance

between economic and cultural motivations (Caves 2000).

Because of the nature of their products, cultural industries should be examined from production to consumption by

exploring their production chain. One way of doing this, is to look at the production chain of cultural industries products,

from their creation to their nal consumption. Pratt has been a main proponent of this approach, exploring the original

production and authoring of cultural industries products (including performance, ne art and literature), their actual produc-

tion, reproduction and mass distribution (e.g. in the form of books, journal magazines, newspapers, lm, radio, television,

recording on disc or tape) and their exhibition and exchange. The author also explores activities that link together these art

forms, such as advertising (Pratt 1997; Pratt 2007). This approach brings together the inputs used in the making of culture,

as well as the activities related to the dissemination of the end product (Department for Culture 2002).

Figure 2 - Cultural industries production chain (Source: Pratt 2007, p.19)

Original production

and authoring

Production tools Reproduction and

mass distribution

Exhibition and sites

of exchange

Indeed, the idea of a trajectory from production to consumption is one that is increasingly explored in the culturalindustries. The linkages between the two ends of the process highlight the presence of a complex ecology of actors, bring-

ing together a variety of complementary skills and expertise. As way of an example, the analysis of the ecology of the music

economy distinguishes four distinctive yet overlapping networks: creativity (or original production, where music is made

and performed), reproduction (or manufacturing processes involved in the commodication of culture, as in the case of

music, which is placed on media such as CDs), distribution (including the actual distribution of the product, but also market-

ing and promotion) and consumption (from retail outlets to the consumer). These networks represent stages through which

cultural material ows and becomes commodied (Leyshon 2001; Leyshon, Webb et al. 2005). The networks of creativity

are shaped in dense, spatially agglomerated interactions between actors and agencies, echoing Scott’s analysis of the

music economy as rooted in ‘communities of workers anchored to particular places’ which self-perpetuate themselves by

acting as a magnet for other talented individuals (Scott 1999).

The emerging complex ecology of cultural industry production brings together different types of ‘creative workers’.

We can distinguish between those engaged in producing primary creative output, those engaged in interpretative activity,


19/82

19

i.e. people who help bring the work of original creation to its audiences, and nally those supplying creative services to

support arts and cultural production. Here a distinction can be made between ‘imaginative’ and ‘utilitarian’ creative oc-

cupations, thus allowing for a distinction between artists and creative workers who, while engaged in cultural industries,

are non-artists (Throsby 2001). An additional layer of analysis is provided by the distinction between art for art’s sake and

humdrum inputs in the cultural industries, as described by Caves: the former refers to the utility drawn by artists in perform-

ing creative work, whereas the latter refers to ordinary economic incentives. These can be combined in the creative worker

or decoupled as the case may be, as in the case of the writer and the publisher, the visual artist and the art gallery (Caves2000). Given the nature of our investigation, we chose to focus on imaginative rather than utilitarian occupations, as this

will give us more of an insight into the dynamics of cultural representation and diversity within the wider sector, as opposed

to more technically bound and less openly ‘creative’ occupations.

The ecology of actors highlights a shift away from the romantic vision of the artist as an ‘isolated genius’. Production

in the cultural industries takes place within an ‘art world’, characterised by the presence of gatekeepers and processes

of cultural mediation. Art exists in a social context and requires more than individual action to create it (Becker 1982;

Hesmondhalgh 2007). According to Scott, the production system can be described as “a ltering device through which

some kinds of (exogenously-given) novelties are allowed to pass while others are rejected along the way” (Scott 2000,

p.34).

The representation of a production chain raises the question of the (intrinsic) value of the cultural commodity itself

and how it develops. Commodities are seen as having only the meaning which is ascribed to them by the individuals, rather

than having a meaning of their own. In order to understand the value and meaning of commodities it is therefore necessary

to follow their trajectories, their forms and uses (Appadurai 1988). The term commodity for Appadurai refers to ‘anything

intended for exchange’ (Appadurai 1988), a denition which avoids any binary distinction between art and commodity

(Madison and Hamera 2006). The contextual life of the commodity is intrinsic in them. ‘Let’s approach commodities as

things in a certain situation, a situation that can characterise many different kinds of thing, at different points in their social

lives. This […] means breaking signicantly with the production-dominated Marxian view of the commodity and focusing on

its total trajectory from production through exchange/distribution, to consumption’ (Appadurai 1988, p.13).

In a study of popular music, some observers have even gone so far as to posit that the “diversity and innovation

available to the public […] has more to do with the market structures and organisational environments of specic industries

than with strongly felt demands of either the masses or their masters for certain kinds of cultural materials (DiMaggio 1977,

p.448). We argue that the question of diversity in the cultural industries needs to be looked at from the perspective of the

interaction between the demand and supply within a wider ‘opportunity structure’ framework. We dene this as the combi-

nation of place and time, sector specic factors, which shape the progression of creative workers in the sector. The main

elements we would like to delve into in the following section are:

● the role of the metropolis as a locus for cultural activities and their hybriditization;

● the question of mediation and gatekeeping in the cultural industries;

● the signicance of ethnicity and diversity in the trajectories of migrants in these sectors; ● the wider institutional approaches to ethnicity and diversity.


20/82

20

3. Negotiating the cultural industries’

opportunity structure

Much has been discussed about the cultural homogenization or heterogenization

impact of globalization. As new forces from across the globe enter our societies, they

become ‘indigenized’ (Appadurai 1990; for an interesting perspective on German-

Turkish rap/hip-hop in Berlin, see Caglar 1998). The cultural economy can no longer

be understood in terms of separate entities manifested in the diversity of nation-

states: we are now looking at an ‘overlapping, disjunctive order, which cannot any

longer be understood in terms of center-periphery models […] nor is it susceptible to

simple models of push and pull (in terms of migration theory) […] or of producers and

consumers’ (Appadurai 1990, p.296). The recognition of the impact of globalisation

and growing internationalisation is fundamental to a greater understanding cultural

diversity and cultural processes altogether (UNESCO 1998).


21/82

21

The de-territorialisation of people, cultures and commodities and the resulting increasing interconnectivities among

space shape the consumer tastes in large metropolitan areas, the arenas where such ows are primarily played out, are

transformed (Appadurai 1990). This leads to a shift in the demand side for cultural products, with globalisation effec-

tively broadening consumer demand for culturally exotic and specialised products and services (Collins, Morrissey et al.

1995, p.101), expanding the choices made available for consumers and contributing to a better allocation of resources

(Caplan and Cowen 2004). In general terms, ‘growing consumer acceptance of, and effective demand for, foreign products,

strengthens ethnic minority and immigrant businesses’ (Light 2005). On the supply side, open and diverse societies are

seen as catalysts for innovation, entrepreneurship and economic development (Florida 2005), or as we have seen earlier,

as thriving centres of cultural and artistic production (Hall 1998).

We argue here that several elements are at work in shaping the cultural industries’ opportunity structure (consid-

ered here as the set of exogenous factors limiting or supporting action) and its openness to diversity. First of all, cultural

industries’ strong anchor in metropolitan areas is simultaneously the object and the reection of strong cultural cross-fertili-

sation, shaping trajectories within the cultural industries. Secondly, we delve into the denition of ethnicity and its relation to

culture, to nd cognitive constituents for our analysis of the dynamic interaction of ethnicity with processes of commodica-

tion of culture within the cultural industries. Finally, we explore the mechanisms of mediation within the cultural industries,and how these might affect trends and tastes of consumers and, in turn, the production (and popularity) of cultural goods.

We seek here to nd the mechanism at work in shaping the diversity of cultural products and hence the shifting boundaries

between ethnic and mainstream markets in which migrant cultural entrepreneurs might operate.

Figure 3 - Rene Sanchez, Cap Verdian music record shop owner, Paris


22/82

22

Cultural industries and the diverse metropolis

Cities have historically been thriving centres of cultural and economic activity, as highlighted in the seminal work by

Peter Hall, Cities in Civilization. Here, the author explores the evolution of cultural capitals such as Vienna, Paris, Athens,

during their golden ages (Hall 1998). More recently, the question of how particular places have done well out of the cul-

tural industries has attracted signicant attention, particularly as the sector has become central to regeneration strategiesacross deprived areas.

Large metropolitan areas ‘represent nodes of location-

specic interactions and emergent effects in which the stimulus to

cultural experimentation and renewal tends to be high’ (Scott 2000,

p.4). Importantly, we are witnessing the emergence of shifting land-

scapes of global cultural ows, which characterise the disjuncture

between economy, culture and politics: the most relevant for our

investigation are ‘ethnoscapes’, the ‘landscape of persons who

constitute the shifting world in which we live: tourists, immigrants,

refugees, exiles, guest-workers, and other moving groups and per-sons’ (Appadurai 1990, p.297). Here the focus is less on ethnicity,

but rather more on the correlation between people across transna-

tional landscapes. Place-based communities in large metropolitan

areas such as Paris, London and Amsterdam are not just repositor-

ies of cultural and creative labour, they also represent ‘active hubs

of social reproduction in which crucial cultural competences are

maintained and circulated’ (Scott 2000, p.33).

Arguably more than other sectors of economic activity, cul-

tural industries illustrate the strong interconnectedness of place,

and particularly the metropolis, and culture: local activities become

imbued with the social and cultural character of the surrounding

urban area. At the same time, the existing and emerging economic

activities contribute to the dynamism of culture-generating and in-

novative capacities of specic places (Zukin 1995; Scott 2000).

Zukin argues that cities have always had symbolic economies, in-

sofar as their elites have made use of symbolic language to put

forward a certain image of the city, as a representation of the domi-

nant powers. She denes the symbolic economy as ‘(T)he look and

feel of cities [which] reect decisions about what – and who – should be visible and what should not, concepts of order

and disorder, and on uses of aesthetic power’. Within this symbolic economy, migrants and ethnic minorities are placingpressures on public institutions and high culture to diversify their offerings to appeal to a wider and more diverse public

(Zukin 1995, p.7). The production of symbols and products within this symbolic economy becomes both a ‘currency for

commercial exchange and a language of social identity’ (Zukin 1995, pp.23-4).

Cultural economies are indeed inclined to exhibit well-developed individual identities, as a consequence of the play

of history, agglomeration and locational specialisation. The power of place therefore plays a key role in determining the

competitiveness of products. As a result, products become inextricably linked to specic places and imbued with a time-

and-place-specic ‘aura’, adding value to the products themselves. Such connection between place and product ‘yields a

kind of monopoly rent that adheres to places, their insignia, and the brand names that may attach to them. Their industries

grow as a result, and the local economic base takes shape. Favourable images create entry barriers for products from

competing places’ (Molotch 1996, p.229). Many metropolitan areas also exhibit the concomitant development of separateyet interwoven cultural industries sectors, beneting from proximity and complex project ecologies (Scott 2004). The strong

ties between the metropolis and its critical infrastructure are recognised (Zukin 1995).

“It was the beginning of

the 80s, the big names in

Latin music were arriving

here […] there was a core

of good musicians based

in Paris and the stars were

coming from the States or

Latin America. They knew

that there were Paris-based

teams and that they didn’t

need to come with a full

orchestra. This gave me the

opportunity to work with

stars such as Patato Valdez,

Chocolate Armenteros, Tata

Guines, people who meant a

lot to me in my youth and all

of a sudden, I had the oppor-

tunity of working with them.”

(Interview n.15, musician).


23/82

23

Not only socially, but also economically, urban diversity is of

great importance, according to Jacobs. In an area of the city with

different kinds of suppliers and buyers, entrepreneurs can share

their facilities, such as ofce spaces and machines, and prot from

a varied supply of knowledge and expertise. The cross-fertilization

which results from that diversity works as a magnet for compa-nies that are looking for a new place to establish themselves.

Additionally, the mix of old and new buildings in the neighbourhood

gives every type of entrepreneur a chance. In this way, it is pos-

sible that a modern stockbroker’s ofce and a traditional furniture

maker are neighbours. According to Jacobs’ motto, “new ideas of-

ten need old buildings” so a city neighbourhood can grow into a

true breeding ground of entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation

(Jacobs 1961; Jacobs 1969). Hall’s element of serendipity, “some-

thing beyond the economy and the inherited cultural dispositions”

partly explains this. Rather than exchange occurring in a system-

atic way, people “meet, people talk, people listen to each other’smusic and each other’s words, dance each other’s dances, take in

each other’s thoughts’ (Hall 1998, p.21). Creativity and innovation

are therefore not seen as the prerogative of the individual, indeed,

a key role is played by the social conditions of production of the cul-

tural economy. It is not that individual genius is denied, but rather

that it is channelled towards cultural production (DiMaggio 1977).

Places can thus be seen as ‘articulated moments in networks of

social relations and understandings’ (Massey 1994, p.154).6

Questioning the origins of creativity and whether a city

can have creative industries for very long without being creative,

Peter Hall gives a prominent role to exchanges and serendipity

of encounters in cities. Reecting on Gardner’s work on highly

creative XX century individuals, Hall reected that creativity was

often linked to individuals originating from localities peripheral to

the centres of power and inuence, yet not completely cut off. These individuals were socially marginal, as a result of their

ethnicity, gender, nationality or social class, yet their positioning ‘at the edge’ allowed them to thrive (Hall 2000, pp.642-5).

The metropolitan area therefore becomes the scene for interconnections between a diversity of people and places where

creative inspiration can tap into.

There is therefore cross fertilisation occurring between cultural diversity and the metropolis: the vibrant metropolisthrives off diversity, while diversity nds a natural habitat in the metropolis, where being different is part of the ‘norm’ and

peculiarity of denizens. Yet cultural industries are often subject to competitive pressures that encourage agglomeration of

production yet globalisation of output circulation (Scott 2004). This has often been linked to discussions about the threat

of cultural homogenisation or even ‘imperialism, as the circulation of cultural products and symbols mainly originating from

the West is perceived to lead to a levelling of cultural consumption across the globe (for a discussion, see Throsby 2001,

p.156-7). We would argue that we are witnessing parallel processes of homogenisation and differentiation, as global and

local forces interact. This raises an important question about diversity in the cultural economy overall, which we will ap-

proach in the following section, where we explore a crucial mechanism at work in the cultural industries: cultural mediation

and the emergence of trends and tastes, their legitimisation, and the impact this has on the range of cultural products that

come to see the day.

“There are people who

miscalculate their links to

African traditions in their

fashion designs. I mean, ifyou want to want to have

some Japanese inuences

in your clothes, it doesn’t

mean that you have to dress

up as a Japanese! You

should think about what

an Italian (referring to the

interview) wears and bring

something new, somethingdifferent to what she wears.

I am not going to impose

something. I am an African

stylist, but it doesn’t mean

that I can only do something

nice by doing something

original”

(Interview n.31, fashion designer)


24/82

24

Mediation in the cultural industries

In this day and era, the diversity of cultural industry products that are available to us as consumers is subject to forc-

es of cultural mediation. Trends and fads are wide ranging in their geographical scope: some are globalized and adopted

the world through. Some are very localised, linked to local, regional traditions.

Many creative activities are characterised by a large pool of creative hopefuls and a more or less continuous over-supply of applicants (Becker 1982; Frank and Cook 1995; Eikhof and Haunschild 2007). Consequently, only a fraction

of the creative work actually gets commodied, entering the production cycle and giving rise to economic value added.

Production and consumption can be thus seen as embedded spatially, historically, and socially. In this sense, consumption

can be in seen as an institutional eld, centred around the production of commodities for individual demand and structured

around ‘interconnected economic and cultural institutions’, highlighting the strong interconnections of consumption with its

social context (Zukin and Maguire 2004, p.175).

The model of production on which cultural industries are based generally gives rise to an over-supply of raw mate-

rial. This characteristic of cultural production requires an ‘over-supply of raw material at the outset and pinpoints a number

of strategic checkpoints at which the oversupply is ltered out’ (Hirsch 1972, p.649; Brandellero and Kloosterman 2007).

There is a risk involved in the volatility with which audiences/consumers use cultural commodities in order to express they

are different from other people7 . This results in a strong emphasis on audience maximization to minimize the risk, putting

together a large ‘cultural repertoire’ (Garnham and Inglis 1990, p.161). Volatility requires an over-supply of outputs to max-

imise chances of success (Hirsch 1972), and as a result, an over-supply of inputs further upstream, in the creative phase.

It also often results in an ‘options’ type contract, where at different stages between the original idea and its realisation, the

option to pull the plug on a project remains open (Caves 2000).

Figure 4 - Posters at La Chapelle show the vibrancy of the Paris music scene


25/82

25

The producer of a cultural good is therefore faced with a merciless state of uncertainty, known as the ‘nobody

knows’ property (Caves 2000). Cultural goods display the property of horizontal differentiation, whereby products are

similar but not identical. This property is connected to the innite variety property, which invokes the plethora of creative

possibilities a creative worker can draw upon in his or her work. In this context of variety, making a choice between product

A or B becomes complex. Information becomes a crucial element in the decision-making process, yet nding this is often

delegated to intermediaries, who rank creative work according to an A list/B list (Becker 1982; Caves 2000). This vertical

differentiation between products results from our comparative appreciation of them, yet our appreciation is by no meansshaped in a vacuum: hence the importance of exploring how trends come about.

At rst glance, trends can seem unfair: the winner receives a prize, whereas the losers walk away empty-handed.

The so-called Matthew effect8, initially applied to research on how recognition is given in science, has been widely studied

and applied to research on mass consumption and trends (Merton 1988). Fashion and trends have been described as

following a bell-shaped, Gauss-type curve, representing the strong ascent of trends reaching a peak, only to descend into

oblivion straight after (Erner 2008, p.10). Trends are therefore seen as a type of behaviour adopted on a temporary basis

by a signicant part of a social group, the reason being that this behaviour is perceived as socially appropriate for that time

and context (Sproles 1985). This process of adoption requires some form of historical continuity with previous fashions in

order to receive collective acceptance, even when the fashion choices are innovative (Blumer 1969). Malcolm Gladwell’s

Tipping Point conceptualises the critical point at which objects or practices are diffused in the way of an epidemic. This

social phenomenon occurs by virtue of three categories of people: mavens, connectors and salesmen. Mavens are knowl-

edgeable individuals and direct others towards objects in a more disinterested way. Connectors on the other hand play a

more active, often unfocused, role in linking people and in disseminating trends through word of mouth. Finally, the sales-

men have a direct nancial or symbolic stake in diffusing trends (Gladwell 2000).

Demand uncertainty in the cultural industries is caused by shifting consumer preferences, but also by the criteria of

selection mobilised by gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can be seen as ‘surrogate consumers’ serving as fashion experts and

opinion leaders for their respective elds of activity (Hirsch 1972). These workers who come in between symbolic creators

and consumers, creating points of articulation and connection between them. They are key to translating the value of new

commodities to audiences, engaged as they are in regulating access and exclusion to industries involved in the productionof symbolic goods and services - often through small networks of connections, shared values and common life experi-

ences (Negus 2002, p.503-11). Gatekeepers are pivotal in maintaining the specic identity of the local production system,

adopting a role of taste-makers. These individuals shape tastes and trends, ‘what sells’ and what is destined to be a op,

by power of the ‘pen’, as is the case of journalists for instance. ‘Inuencers’ are generally speaking ahead of their times

and through their tastes and choices inuence those of the rest of the population (Patterson, Grenny et al. 2007). This

involves developing ‘aesthetic principles, arguments, and judgements’ that constitute a signicant part of the ‘conventions’

by means of which members of art worlds act together. Artists in general nd themselves seeking, or in any case, needing

the approval of such institutionalised peer reviewers in order to access market openings something which is questioned in

the case of artists with a subversive cult following (Currid 2007).

Producers and promoters of cultural industry products play a key role within the cultural industries, transforming

talent and creative ideas into commodiable9 and marketable goods and services. We envisage the presence of a ‘com-

modication boundary’ (see gure 8 in the following section), as a negotiated passage between creativity and the cultural

industry production chain, modulated by trade-offs between cultural and economic considerations over the anticipated out-

comes of a product in a market exchange environment (Brandellero and Kloosterman 2007). In this sense, gatekeepers do

not just decide on who gets through but also on how. Creating an explicit aesthetic may precede, follow, or be simultaneous

with developing the techniques, forms, and works which make up the art world’s output. The creation of aesthetic systems

can be an ‘industry in its own right’ though, developed and maintained by specialised professionals such as critics (Becker

1982, p.131-2). The role of mediators is to initiate customers to their understanding and adoption of these new trends and

fads. While this role was initially devolved to the press, we subsequently witness the emergence of the branchés (from the

French for wired, hip), i.e. social gures who are seen as up to date with trends and what is ‘in’ and what is not (Erner 2008,p.36)10 .

As products in the cultural industries tend to be taste-driven and performance-driven (Currid 2007), selection fo-


26/82

26

cuses on the aesthetic qualities of the product. In a discussion with a world music label manager in Paris, it emerged that

a journalist from the renowned Le Monde newspaper had stormed out of a concert by an African musician a couple of

minutes from the start of the performance, claiming that ‘there are no drums in music from Mali’11 . The ndings of research

on career paths of visual artists in the UK are also particularly telling. Many black artists found that it was difcult to get a

following for their work, celebrations of diversity appeared to be more rewarded by galleries than by a critical perspective

on it (Honey, Heron et al. 1997). Here it would appear that, while on the one hand the institutional framework might be sup-

porting the progression of migrants (or more generally speaking, as in this case, cultural entrepreneurs of ethnic origin), onthe other it might be steering them towards specic market niches.

The idea that different social classes distinguish themselves by means of their consumption patterns was forged

by Edmond Goblot in his work on consumption as a ‘barrier’ between the bourgeoisie and other classes; at the same time,

the signs and objects pertinent to the bourgeoisie’s consumption patterns constitute an objective lower classes strive to

reach (Goblot 1925). Building upon this, Bourdieu talked about tastes as ‘social markers’. Tastes develop according to a

person’s capital (the set of social or cultural resources an individual benets from due to his belonging to a specic class)

and habitus (the conscious/unconscious forms of behaviour an individual incorporates during his rst socialisation experi-

ences, within the family or at school). He highlights in a sense some forms of social determinism, which denes our tastes

(Bourdieu 1979).

The discussion on fashion and trends raises the ques-

tion of the relationship between the individual and the collectivity.

Following trends has the psychological advantage of freeing the in-

dividual from the pressures of individualism, of being a member of

a group rather than an isolated being (Simmel 1988). At the same

time, trends demarcate groups: they represent the unity within one

group and its break with others. The idea that different social class-

es distinguish themselves by means of their consumption patterns

was forged by Edmond Goblot in his work on consumption as a

‘barrier’ between the bourgeoisie and other classes; at the sametime, the signs and objects pertinent to the bourgeoisie’s consump-

tion patterns constitute an objective lower classes strive to reach

(Goblot 1925). Building upon this, Bourdieu talked about tastes as

‘social markers’. Tastes develop according to a person’s capital (the set of social or cultural resources an individual benets

from due to his belonging to a specic class) and habitus (the conscious/unconscious forms of behaviour an individual

incorporates during his rst socialisation experiences, within the family or at school). He highlights in a sense some forms

of social determinism, which denes our tastes (Bourdieu 1979).

According to Daniel Bell, fashion trends have replaced

the distinction between high culture and mass culture: what has

emerged is the distinction between what is fashionable and what is

outdated. This distinction allows the capitalist system to base itself

on a system of competition whereby the industry benets from the

democratisation of trends. The market domination is insured by the

innovation of trends and their renewal (Bell 1996). Also pointing to-

wards the inuence of the commercial on our tastes, Barthes stat-

ed ‘the commercial origin of our collective image-system (always

subject to fashion, not merely in the case of clothing), cannot be a

mystery to anyone’ (Barthes 1990, p.xii). This can be seen as the

‘total dictatorship of fashion’, whereby producers within a capitalist

system have a limitless manipulation capacity over consumers ofobjects.

“This richness in the diver-

sity of people who create

trends plays a very impor-

tant role in France. As some

say, there is no fashion with-

out culture.”


“Different trends are part

of the environment of big

cities. Some are rather

reticent, they say ‘African

prints! They don’t belong to

European culture!’. But in

large cities, people can be

more open, they live side by

side with people from differ-

ent cultures.”



27/82

27

In recent years though, a new theory of trends has emerged, attempting to supplant the widely accepted notion of a

Pareto distribution of products and markets: this suggested that in a market with a high freedom of choice of products, the

buying patterns of the population will result in a certain level of inequality, whereby 20% of the products (i.e. the head) will

be favoured against the other 80% (i.e. the long tail). This theory puts forward the idea that exactly this neglected ‘long tail’

will come to matter increasingly in the future, as would appear from the observation of online buying trends on sites such

as Amazon. ‘If the 20th century was about hits, the 21st will be equally about misses’, claimed the long tail proponent Chris

Anderson (Anderson 2004, p.172). Should this be the case, the potential for minority tastes gaining visibility and a niche inthe market would prove a signicant boost to diversity of cultural industry products and their consumption patterns.

This raises questions concerning the third element in our opportunity structure analysis: the study of diversity,

culture and ethnicity. We argue that in the cultural industries, the symbolic understanding of products is more often than

not mediated through the prism of cultural diversity and as a result, of ethnicity imposing a certain reading of ethnicity and

‘roots’ to products, based on either their content or the background of their creator.

Ethnicity, culture and diversity

Ethnicity is ‘widely associated with culture, descent, group

memories, histories and language’ (Karner 2007, p.17). Ethnicity,

and to the same extent, race are not naturally occurring entities,

but rather ‘rely upon social processes and discourses that construct

and subsequently naturalise/reify group differences’ (Karner 2007,

p.17). ‘Ethnie’ is dened as a ‘named population with myths of com-

mon ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more elements of

common culture [eg. Religion, customs, language], a [frequent] link

with a homeland and a sense of solidarity among at least some of its

members’ (Hutchinson and Smith 1996, p.6). This draws the atten-tion to the question of names or labels, which members of an ethnic

group or ‘outsiders’ use to dene the group itself (Karner 2007). It

should here be noted that the history of incorporation of migrants

and ethnic groups cannot be separated from the changes in ethnic

and racial boundaries, which have been stretched over time (Lee

and Bean 2004).

Culture and ethnicity are intertwined in multiple ways.

Discussions have often been centred around the question of cul-

ture, the individual and his/her relation to a wider group of ‘belong-

ing’ (Karner 2007). One of the key debates in the sociology of cul-

ture has centred around ethnocentrism, highlighting the tension between the idea of one culture and of multiple cultures.

This idea combines on the one hand a refusal to accept cultural diversity and the relativity of one’s own culture, and on the

other hand the rejection of those who do not share one’s same culture (Fleury 2008). There is a form of primordialism or

cultural determinism here, entailing a more or less non-negotiable power of ethnic ties (Geertz 1997) or a form of essential-

ism, which points to an essence transcending historical and cultural boundaries (Brah 2001, p.253). A second issue in the

study of culture is that of culturalism: here cultures are seen as having specic traits, which are unaltered and transmitted

across generations (Fleury 2008, p.11). The Norwegian social anthropologist Frederik Barth made a signicant contribution

to these discussions by pointing out that ‘the critical focus of the investigation […] becomes the ethnic boundary that denes

the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses’ (Barth 1969, p.15). In doing so, Barth made a step forward in the concep-

tualisation of ethnicity, by introducing a social constructivist perspective whereby ethnicity is a social organisation based onthe drawing and reproduction of group boundaries. His criticism of traditional associations of race=language=culture were

mainly based on the idea that ‘while purporting to give an ideal type model of a recurring empirical form, it implies a precon-

ceived view of what are the signicant factors in the genesis, structure, and function of such groups’ (Barth 1969, p.11).

“I had a big ght with the de -

signer teacher there because

it was like, I came from

Curacao and he was trying

to tell me what is beautiful.

And it was like, this is dread-

ful, how come you’re in this

position to teach people, if

you are telling me that it’s

just, your eyes are telling

me, there is something in

your eyes, no I don’t believe

that.”



28/82

28

Figure 5 - François Essindi and Jimi Soto from Abakuya, Paris

The idea of isolated ethnic groups limits our understanding of cultural diversity, in the sense that it imagines culturaldifference as being developed in isolation in each group (see discussion in Barth 1969, p.11). “Ethnic categories provide

an organizational vessel that may be given varying amounts and forms of content in different socio-cultural systems. They

may be of great relevance to behaviour, but they need not be; they may pervade all social life, or they may be relevant only

in limited sectors of activity”. The critical element then becomes self-ascription or ascription by others (Barth 1969, p.14).

“One is led to identify and distinguish ethnic groups by the morphological characteristics of the cultures of which they are

the bearers. This entails a prejudged viewpoint both on (1) the nature of continuity in time of such units, and (2) the locus

of the factors which determine the form of the units” (Barth 1969, p.12). Here we touch upon the concept of ‘homology’,

one of the basic principles of the sociology of culture, meaning the notion that the boundaries between cultural forms align

with the boundaries between groups. Different audiences have preferences for different artistic and musical genres, and

conversely those genres often help constitute boundaries between groups’ (Roy 2002, p.461).

The study of ethnic identities is rather problematic in the sense that it runs the risk of being reductionist and limiting

the scope of human agency by suggesting that individuals are fully determined by their group belonging or culture (Karner

2007, p.91). Another aspect which is often overlooked is the question of multiple identities and the distinction between dis-

course and practice. In this context, Baumann has referred to ‘dual discursive competence’ stating that ‘most people prac-

tice a double discursive competence when it comes to their discourses about culture, and they develop this dual discursive

competence more strongly the more they expose themselves to multicultural practices […]. We thus cannot advance a

multicultural understanding of culture if we treat the essentialist view and the processual view as two opposite theories and

call one of them true and the other one false’ (Baumann 1999, pp.93-4).

Ethnicity emerges therefore not as a unitary phenomenon but as a reminder that we should look beyond labels andgroups, at the circumstances under which it comes to matter (Fenton 2003). ‘Difference in the sense of social relations

may be understood as the historical and contemporary trajectories of material circumstances and cultural practices which

produce the conditions for the construction of group identities. The concept refers to the interweaving of shared collec-


29/82

29

tive narratives within feelings of community, whether or not this ‘community’ is constituted in face-to-face encounters orimagined, in the sense that Benedict Anderson (1991) suggests (Brah 2001). As a result, we should look at ethnicity from

the set of structures which constrain and enable simultaneously social action, the cognitive way of interpreting it, and the

biographically grounded, emotionally charged way of living (see Karner 2007).

The question of identity is also relevant here: ‘identication is constructed on the back of recognition of common ori-

gin or shared characteristics with another person or group’. Identities thus become ‘about questions of using the resources

of history, language and culture in the process of becoming rather than being: not so much ‘who we are’ or ‘where we came

from’, so much as what we might become, how we have been represented and how that bears on how we might represent

ourselves. Identities are therefore constituted within not outside representation’. As a result, identities are not about com-

ing to terms with our ‘roots’ but rather our ‘routes’ (Hall 1996, p.2-4). Stuart Hall therefore points out the importance of the

socialisation environment and wider context in shaping and negotiating individual identities. The ‘primordia’ associated with

ethnic identity is often a case of ‘invented traditions’ (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983).

Jenkins talks about a dual aspect of ethnicity, distinguishing between ‘social classication’ as the external imposi-

tion of a classication grid on populations, involving powerful outsiders and the reproduction of boundaries, and ‘group

identication’ as people’s experience of solidarity and meaning as self-identifying group members (Jenkins 1997). These

phenomena are inextricably linked, constituting two distinct processes of ‘ascription’, that is of ascribing specic character-

istics to a group or to oneself (Karner 2007). These two perspectives provide two viewpoints from which biographies are

lived and observed.

“The inuence if I go back

in my mind, it’s more like

walking on this bridge, or

the trees, the grass, the

waves when you go swim- ming. Those things are the

main inuence I think. And

later on when I came to

Europe, you see the paint-

ings, architecture, things

you have seen on paper or

photo and you see them

in person, later on those

things inuenced me I

think.”


Figure 6 - Posters from the festival Africolor, Paris


30/82

30

The question of ascription raises the discussion around assimilation, a term which in its history and use has rather

dramatically changed from a description of an inevitable progression to the observation of a more complex two-way dy-

namic process of incorporation (Alba and Nee 2003). Here it is interesting to note that while acculturation (as a process of

adaptation) and cultural accommodation (a process of adjustment) have in the past been given high attention in dynamics

of assimilation, more structural elements of incorporation, including social, economic and residential status, have also

been identied as critical (for a review of literature, see Alba and Nee 2003). The idea of a straight line assimilation proc-

ess, which implies a one way integration of migrants into the host society (Gordon 1964), has been supplanted by a morepluralist model, which introduces the idea of a two-way interaction between minorities and the mainstream, reviving the

Chicago School approach of the evolution of a composite culture, resulting from the ‘interpenetration of cultural practices

and beliefs’ (Alba and Nee 2003, p.10).

Institutional approaches to ethnicity and diversity

This research zooms into three metropolises in three different countries: Amsterdam, London and Paris. The back-

ground to the research is therefore provided by three different approaches to the question of ethnicity and diversity and

their reection in the policy domain.

In France, the major classication of people is in terms of nationality: you are either a national or a foreigner

(étranger), there being no ofcial or institutional categories to dene people once they have French nationality (Dubet

1989). In France, republican anti-multiculturalism has always been the dominant, accepted model across the political spec-

trum, culminating in the banning of headscarves in schools in 2004 (Modood 2007), though in recent months a discussion

has been open on the question of recognising ethnic categorisations.

This is clearly different from the British case where ‘eth-

nic origin’ is recognised institutionally within the national com-

munity (Silverman 1992). Multi-culturalism is the ‘recognition of

group difference within the public sphere of laws, democratic dis-courses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity’

(Modood 2007, p.2). In France, the idea that a person can be both

a French citizen and have an ethnic or religious identity is unac-

ceptable, while in Britain community cohesion promotes the com-

bining of race or faith with the idea of being British (for a compara-

tive study of ethnic minorities in France and Britain, see Raymond

and Modood 2007). The Netherlands was in many ways a pioneer of multiculturalism with its Ethnic Minorities Policy

(Minderhedennota) of 1983 and ample provisions for state-funded autonomous schools and broadcasting, combined with

a social democratic approach to social housing, welfare benets and an afrmative action in employment. Several events,

however, contributed to relegating multiculturalism to the ‘dung-hill of history’ in the Netherlands by 2005, notably the reac-

tion to the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh (Modood 2007, p.13).

Given the internal and external representation of ethnicity and the relevance of group boundaries, the articulation

of ethnicity in cultural production appears to necessitate a multi-layered analysis. Under which conditions is ethnicity mobi-

lised in cultural production? Does it constitute an advantage or a drawback in providing the source of creative inspiration?

To what extent is the experience of cultural products shaped by group boundaries and identications?

“Everybody is a small slice

of this wonderful jigsaw wecall London”

(Interview n.31, architect)


31/82

31

4. Migrants in the cultural industries

Since the Second World War, the market orientation and job characteristics of mi-

grants have manifested a tendency to become concentrated at the lower end of the

market, in low-value added activities, with low incomes and modest prospects for

social mobility (Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990; Smallbone, Bertotti et al. 2005). In

post-industrial urban economies, migrants from less-developed countries have gen-

erally speaking taken up lower wage and skills jobs in the manufacturing and service

sector, or, when self-employed, run small shops (e.g. grocery stores) or restaurants

at the lower end of the market (Jones, Barrett et al. 2000; Panayiotopoulos 2006. ).


32/82

32

Research on migrant entrepreneurship has mainly focused its attention on the interaction between the resources

mobilized by migrants and the opportunity structures which they face. The type of businesses migrants have established

and the sectors they have integrated have been seen as the result of the interaction between specic assets they can

draw upon and a ‘time and place’ specic set of circumstances

(Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990; Light and Rosenstein 1995; Light

2005; Kloosterman forthcoming). Starting from a criticism of ear-

lier frameworks (Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990), with their overem-phasis on cultural causality

books_cpra 2007_crossing cultural borders

Documents